08/03/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

As the ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal

remains in a critical

condition in hospital,

the Home Secretary Amber Rudd

promises the government will be

robust in its repsonse.

But just what can Britain do

if Russian involvement is proved?

We'll get the thoughts

of a former foreign secretary.

Depending on where you live

in the country your life expectancy

could vary by as much as 20 years,

so what can be done

to fix the problem?

With the Saudi Crown

Prince continuing his

visit to the UK, we'll

look at Labour's claims

that the government is colluding

with the Kingdom over

alleged war crimes.

Should wolf-whistling be

considered a hate crime?

We'll speak to the MP

who wants to get tough

on what she calls acts of misogyny.

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today

is Miatta Fahnbulleh,

who's Chief Executive

of the New Economics Foundation.

Welcome.

Thank you.

First this morning Labour

is promising to get tough

on employers who don't

close their gender pay gap.

The party says if they get

into power all companies with over

250 employees will face an audit

on salaries and if they can't show

they're taking action to close

the gap they may get fined.

Do you support this?

Yes, if you did

it in context, there's clearly a

problem with the gender pay gap. We

have seen progress but it's been

incredibly painfully slow at the

current rate, women will not have

pay parity with men until the 2050s.

We need to act and there are a lot

of conjugated issues underneath it

but the minimum we should expect is

companies should audit this and be

transparent about it. There is

something that Labour have planned

that you have an expectation that

you do not just find out what will

pay gap is, but you take action to

solve it because that is what will

change company behaviour.

Do you

think that violence will persuade

companies to change their behaviour?

It depends -- do you think that a

fine?

We have seen that there is a

penalty for not acting, that it does

shift behaviour but it needs to be

part of a wider package.

You

yourself has said its conjugated,

and police have said -- it is

complicated. Companies have said

that it is a legacy thing, but if

you want change quicker, do you

insist that women are paid more or

men are paid less?

I would argue for

women to be paid more. There are

lots of issues, part of the problem

is that we do not see women in top

jobs. Getting more equality around

top executive jobs is something that

companies can push in recruitment

and progression policies. Part of it

is we still have the case where

women are doing the same job as men

but not being paid the same amount

which is illegal.

So how is it that

people are able to get away with it?

Because you can always justify it by

certain reasons, some of it is

legacy, some of it is endemic but

it's putting a spotlight on the

issue. And requiring companies to

act as part of that. Some of it is

to do with family friendly policies

and the fact that still in our

workplaces, women who have children

are penalised. There are a whole

package of issues but at the start,

you have to recognise there is a

problem and you have got to be

willing to take action. That's what

these sorts of policies might do.

Amber Rudd has just updated

the Commons on the latest

in the poisoning of ex-Russian spy

Sergei Skripal and his

daughter in Salisbury.

Here's a flavour of

what she had to say.

We are committed to doing all we can

to bring the perpetrators to

justice.

Whoever they are and wherever they

may be. The investigation is moving

at pace and this government will act

without hesitation as the facts

become clearer. As my right

honourable friend the Foreign

Secretary made clear on Tuesday, we

will respond in a robust and

appropriate manner once we ascertain

who was responsible.

Let's get the latest on this

with our Home Affairs

Correspondent Leila Nathoo,

who's in Salisbury.

We now know that a nerve agent was

used. How strong lead is that

determining where the nerve agent

came from and who used it?

We are no

closer to understanding those

particular questions, all we know is

that police have released that it

was a nerve agent, not what it was

specifically. We understand it was a

rare kind of nerve agent, the use of

nerve agents in itself is not

common. There is a narrow pool when

it comes to whether could have come

from, the substance. Police do know

the exact substance that was used in

this incident but they do not,

they're not yet releasing that to

us. In the meantime they're trying

to understand whether it was

possibly ingested by surrogate

script and his daughter Yulia, -- by

Sir Guy

we know that they were having a meal

in a pizza restaurant, there is a

window where they could have been

exposed to the substance and police

are trying to piece together that

timeline. How was this substance

carried into the city centre or the

country, and who brought it in.

country, and who brought it in.

The

policeman who was first on the scene

and was also taken ill is now able

to talk, tell a state that he is in

at the moment.

His condition is

described as serious but stable. He

is now conscious. We understand he

was one of the first people to come

to the scene. We don't know exactly

what sort of contact he had with

Sergei Skripal and Yulia or this

substance but the Home Secretary

said it was highly unlikely he was

exposed to the same substance. He is

now conscious and talking. We're

hoping to hear more about his

condition later today. We know

condition later today. We know that

Sergei and Yulia's edition is

described as critical but stable.

Joining me now is the former

foriegn secretary Malcolm

Rifkind and Bill Browder, who calls

himself "Putin's No 1 enemy".

He tried to expose

Putin's corruption.

His lawyer Sergei Magnitsky

was killed in a Russian

prison by the Kremlin.

Welcome to most of you. -- to both

of you. Do you think the response

from the British government has been

correct in terms of time and

approach?

Yes, because you cannot

reach conclusions until the basic

investigation has been completed,

until we are certain what the nerve

agent was and whether it can be

traced to a Russian origin.

That has

not stopped politicians on both

sides saying that the government's

response in general in its dealing

with Russia has been weak in the

past, particularly post the

Litvinenko assess the nation.

I

think they are always tried to open

a dialogue and keep it open, because

of things like terrorism and policy,

if it is established that it was of

Russian origin and the Kremlin was

the explanation, the consequences

would have to be severe.

Would they

be cutting off diplomatic ties?

You

have to consider because following

the Litvinenko affair, if it was

established to our satisfaction that

Putin was directly or in narrative

is possible like this, in effect he

is -- indirectly responsible for

this, in effect he is behaving like

a rogue state and it is not possible

to conduct normal government

business.

What is your knowledge on

this?

I have learned that it is a

criminal enterprise, Russia, not a

country as we know it. Vladimir

Putin is one of the richest men in

the world, he has that money through

extortion and craft and theft on his

country. He keeps the money all over

the world. His main objective is to

stay in power and keep his money

safe in the West. In this instance,

the major theory I have about what

would be his motivation for going

after this man here is not so much

Mr Skripal's personal situation, but

he has a whole range of secret

policemen and intelligence officers

who he has to keep motivated. They

are running out of money in Russia

because of their economy, oil prices

are down and they have a situation

where if they cannot motivate people

with money, they have to motivate

people with fear, and the best fear

it a go after one person and his

family and liquidate them in the

worst way possible.

Do you think the

British government should be more

robust in this stage before we know

who is responsible?

This is an act

of state-sponsored terrorism using

chemical weapons, we all try to

prove this but there is enough

circumstantial evidence that we

should act on it. Have they rounded

up Russian agents, other Russian

agents in the UK to interrogate them

under terrorism laws?

Is that what

you would be proposing at this

stage, Malcolm Rifkind? That

pressure should be put on the

Russian state, or a signal that this

is being taken seriously even before

we know what has happened?

We lose

none of these options by allowing

ourselves for the next few days to

enable the police and the scientists

give us the hard information on the

source of this attack, the methods

used and where the evidence might

point to a Russian connection.

Nothing will be unavailable in a few

days' time that is available today.

That's not true when you have a

crime, all of the evidence of the

crime starts to disappear as time

goes on. If you act on it

immediately, it took them four days

to take this thing seriously. On the

first day, no one even knew what was

going on.

It was slightly less than

four days, it happened on Sunday.

On

Monday, there was a fight between

the Wiltshire Police and the

Metropolitan Police, it was only

last night that this whole thing got

serious.

May I say, I stand to know

one with my respect for what he has

done, he is a fantastic guy, but I

have to differ from him in this

matter. Any criminal investigation

however serious, from 9/11 onwards,

the Americans didn't within 24 hours

start taking action and invading

Afghanistan. They waited a few days

until it became abundantly clear of

the responsible of the, there is no

evidence being lost simply because

we do not punish Russia today on the

basis of what we suspect. At this

stage we have not got as much hard

truth is we are likely to have.

Do

you think the evidence is pointing

that way, the finger of suspicion is

pointing at the Russian State?

Edward Leigh, the Tory MP, has said

it's a brazen act of war and peace

through strength is the only way we

can deal with Russia.

These are fine

words but they don't add up. What

seems the most likely explanation,

here is a former Russian

intelligence officer who spied for

the United Kingdom, living in

Britain, he may lose his life as a

result of this attack. Where else is

the responsibility to live? It could

be Putin, in theory it could be

rogue elements in the Russian

intelligence services operating with

the Russian criminal elements in

London. Putin himself might be

behind that but we do not know.

Hopefully we will note a lot more of

this investigation proceeds.

But

will we know a lot more? It will be

very difficult to trace exactly

whether or not Putin was behind it.

You don't need 100% evidence. What

you do need is the phrase we would

normally use in our own courts,

beyond reasonable doubt. If we are

satisfied beyond reasonable doubt

that Putin either directly or

indirectly is responsible, that is

when the United Kingdom has to

contemplate as much punishment as it

can impose. We're not a superpower,

there's limits to what we can

achieve but I bring up against the

bastion, diplomatic relations are

what you have with countries where

you can have a meaningful dialogue.

If we cannot have that with Russia

for the time being, then for the

time being, we have to seriously

consider whether their embassy

should just be locked up, closed

down and they can depart for a

period of time.

People might say,

that's not very much.

It's a hell of

a lot.

What does could be done in

terms of financial sanctions to put

pressure on the state?

We have huge

leveraged in this situation because

all Russians, Russian government

officials and connected oligarchs,

have huge quantities in London. We

have laws in place, named after my

murdered lawyer, in which we can

seize those assets. We should seize

those assets and seizing those

assets would have a dramatic effect

because after Litvinenko, we

effectively did nothing, we kicked

out a few diplomats and we all came

together. That is not going to

prevent them from doing this kind of

thing. What will is if their assets

gets eased.

We already have new

laws, that if people have a level of

wealth in this country that they

cannot explain having got

legitimately, we can get their

assets.

As it happened to anyone?

The courts are in the process are

giving to the first cases.

To

Russian oligarchs?

No Russian

oligarchs yet.

We operate a rule of

law system, and if there is evidence

to justify individuals, whether

Russian oligarchs or from the

Ukraine or other countries who are

acting illegally or supporting

illegal action, what Bill says

should happen should happen.

Have we

made it to the -- too comfortable

for people like that to come to

London, I feel it is easy for them

to come here and educate their

children, there is no real pressure.

This isn't just about Russians or

Ukrainians, even when I was Foreign

Secretary in the 1990s, many

countries said, you have so many of

our dissidents living in London, why

do you allow this? The reality is

that if we have people who behave

under the law in this country, we do

not hold their political background

against them.

If it is shown, that

Vladimir Putin the Russian state had

some involvement in this and is

prepared to do what has happened, to

Mr Skripal and his daughter, does

that show that he is becoming even

bolder, Vladimir Putin, and more

brazen than in the past?

He has been

completed brazen. Let's look at

other things that happened. Date

shot down a play -- they shot down

at plane and 287 innocent people

died, they cheated in the political,

they tried to cheat the US election,

Putin has been over the line for a

long time but we continue in a most

subservient way to not do anything

about it and we have leverage to do

something. They do their crimes in

Russia and Nicky their property in

the West. And they care about their

property.

-- they keep their

property. Do you think it was a weak

response, following Litvinenko?

I

don't. I think all the steps that

were taken, I know from my own

recollection, it led to a deep

rupture with Russia. I hear what he

says, and I wish I could believe

that simply confiscating a few

buildings and a few assets in London

would all change Russian foreign

policy. Ill things to think it will

do and he may be right, I can't say

wrong certainly, but I don't think

Putin would be creating -- quaking

in the Kremlin because he loses a

few buildings.

It won't necessarily

change anything.

We know he cares

about money more than human life and

we also know in the case of these

assets sanctions, he cares about it

fro profoundly. -- very profoundly.

The law I got past in Africa, -- in

America, he sent his own emissary to

Trump Tower to get it repealed as

his one asked of Donald Trump before

he was elected. So I would not

underestimate the power of going

after his property. Certainly all

beta dramatic tools, cutting off a

shrug with these diplomatic tools,

cutting off relations, they don't

work. What does work is going after

their personal financial interest.

How scared are you?

I live in a

state where they have been after me,

they threatened me with death,

kidnapping, arrest and extradition.

I'm probably the number one target.

So not in a very good position

personally? Malcolm Rifkind, when

you say we could lock the door and

close the embassies, beyond that,

what would the robust response look

like?

It could be a combination of

what Bill has said, plus the

diplomatic action and other remedies

available. But to let's not kid

ourselves, a country the size and as

powerful as Russia, there is no

single act or combination of acts

that can quite literally force them

to change their policy. That is not

the real world, any more than you

could do that with the USA or China

or other countries of that size and

power. What we have to do is to be

rational. We have Diousse believers

we have, including the ones Bill

mentioned, but at the end of the

day, if Putin judges that his own

priorities still make sense to

behave in such a disgraceful way, it

is bad news for the world as a whole

but Britain by itself cannot make a

fundamental change in Russia. It

would require a concerted

international response, including

the United States and many other

countries all been prepared to act

jointly.

In the meantime, you are in

fear of your life?

I don't live in

fear but they are after me, for

sure.

OK, what would you suggest,

looking at this from the outside,

that is really going to do anything

to exert pressure on the Russian

state?

I think we have two establish

the facts first and if there is a

link, the question is would you do.

I think the room for manoeuvre is

quite limited for the UK Government

acting unilaterally. I think there

is something about property because

actually, Russian money coming into

the property market has been

massively distorting. It won't only

benefit us in terms of foreign

policy but I think it will benefit

the property market domestically.

The big thing is, will it have any

impact? I fear it won't because in

the end, multilateral action, across

the EU, ironically, would be the

only thing to put us in a position

where we could bite and the Russian

government might change its

behaviour but I worry Britain acting

on its own, even if it is a

combination, a package of things, in

the end, would fundamentally change

the behaviour of the Russian state.

Thank you for joining us.

It seems where you live can

have a dramatic influence

on your life expectancy.

Latest figures released

by the Office of National Statistics

show the variation across England

and Wales can be up to 20 years.

Denbighshire in Wales has

one of the lowest life

expectancies for men and women.

expectancies for men and women.

The ward of Rhyl West has

an expectancy of 74.5 half years

for women and just over 68 for men.

Bloomfield in Blackpool

is the lowest in the country

at 68.2 years for men.

Contrast that with

the highest figures.

Men in Knightsbridge and Belgravia

in Westminster can expect

to live to just over 89.

Women in Dullingham Village

in East Cambridgeshire to 97.

Joining me in the studio

is the Labour MP Chris Ruane

who represents Rhyl West,

which has one of the lowest

life expectancy rates,

and from Parliament's central lobby

is the Conservative MP Vicky Ford.

Welcome to the programme. What do

you make of the disparity between

the highest and lowest parts of

England and Wales in terms of life

expectancy?

Clearly there is an

issue and we do need to address that

difference in life expectancy in

different communities but it is

because of a number of different

factors. There's obviously health

issues which are a number of complex

issues which the government is

already working on. As well as

income differentials and the good

news is that actually, income

inequality is much lower now than it

was under the past Labour

government, for example. So the

health inequality issues, it's about

addressing things like childhood

obesity and diabetes and cancer

survival and those are all issues

the government is taking action on.

But it should have taken action by

now, 20 years is a massive

difference between parts of England

and Wales with the lowest and

highest life expectancy rates and it

is a Conservative government that

has been in charge of the things you

have talked about since 2010.

These

issues take time to address because

obviously, what happens at the end

of life is affected by what happened

when one was a child and growing up.

As I said, if the -- issues like

health differentials, tackling

smoking and childhood obesity, those

are all issues which the government

has focused on and is delivering

results on and as I said, the income

inequality is a key issue. Why is

income equality -- income inequality

getting better? Because the

government has managed to help more

people back into work, 3 million

more jobs, 880,000 fewer families

without work. We are putting people

in real jobs with more money in

their pockets which helps healthier

living.

Right, welcome to the daily

politics, Chris, as we have seen

from your constituency, which

includes the ward of Will West which

has one of the lowest life

expectancy for men and women, why?

It is funny that the two areas you

have highlighted, two seaside towns,

Rhyl in Wales and Blackpool in

England. What we have seen in

England is because of the benefits

cap, the bedroom tax, Universal

Credit, people as Boris Johnson

said, has been socially cleansed

from the areas they lived in in the

cities and many of them have fled to

coastal towns and you have seen a

concentration in specific wards of

coastal towns which have brought the

life expectancy down for those

towns. If I can just say, you've hit

on two or three constituencies here

but there is a wider picture across

the UK. The Parliamentary question

asked some six weeks ago, the answer

was given to me last night and it's

been placed in the House of Commons

library today which is very

prescient because it is

International Women's Day, and the

figures for England are that 22% of

women aged 65 had seen a decline in

their life expectancy since 2010.

Since 1840, life expectancy has got

up. 2010, it has stopped.

That is

shocking, isn't it?

Life expectancy

is increasing across the country.

We

will take the figure Chris has just

used about winning over 65.

Women

over 65

in 20% of the local

authority areas in England, have

witnessed a decline in life

expectancy.

Since 2010 when the

Conservatives came into coalition

government, the first time there has

been a decline like that?

As I said,

one of the key issues we have been

focusing on is improving the

inequalities, narrowing the gap.

There's actually been a 33%

improvement on the ratio of

inequalities, income inequalities,

so that is really important.

You

keep on talking about income

inequality, but even if income

inequality, as you have stated, has

been reduced, why are these

differences so marked in areas that

are deprived? It can't be rocket

science to work out that funnily

enough, the low life expectancy

rates are at their highest in areas

that are most deprived across

England and Wales.

The key thing we

have been doing, and it takes time

to feed through, is help more people

into jobs, make sure that they keep

more of their pay, in order to have

healthier lifestyles, and back that

up with actions on areas like

diabetes, childhood obesity,

smoking, which it life expectancy.

Those have all been the priorities

of the government.

Do you agree, is

income and having a job clearly

important in terms of being in work

and earning money, but what do you

take away from these figures on my

fix patency?

The figures are

staggering, the fact they are going

backwards I think using readily

worrying.

In certain areas.

Yes but

it's indicative of a bigger problem

which is that for many people, the

economy is not working, we've had a

decade of wage stagnation and more

to come. Many people have seen

squeezing their living standards. We

are seeing huge inequality across

the country where a lot of the

recovery we have seen since the

financial crisis has been in London

and the south-east and other parts

of the country have not benefited.

There are deep structural problems.

The figures you are seeing on my fix

pectin Zig, health and life

expectancy, are indicative of the

fact that for big chunks of the

population, they are just struggling

to get on and struggling to feed

their kids and it is filtering

through into the figures.

Chris,

what about the lifestyle choices?

Smoking, drinking, diet, all of

these are also indicators, clearly,

of a shortening life.

Absolutely but

why is it happening in certain

nations and regions in the UK and

not in others? Look at the

statistics. In Wales and Northern

Ireland, only 18% of local

authorities witnessed... In

Scotland, it is 6%. In the

north-east, 27%. These are huge

disparities and I think evolution is

working. Where control is nearer the

people, you are seeing better

outcomes and when you have kinder

governments, not right-wing, nasty

governments who have promised

another ten years austerity having

given us eight years at it and now

the chickens are coming home to

roost and we have seen in the

statistics that people are dying

early, mainly women, on

International Women's Day, it is

mainly women dying early because of

Conservative policies.

Is austerity

to blame?

No, it is absolutely about

looking at the issues that affect

health and life expectancy and it is

International Women's Day and that

is why one of the things we are

championing is a number of actions

to help women's health, things like

actions on cervical cancer, breast

cancer, the announcement a few days

ago about surgical mesh and other

issues that have affected women and

this as well as access to mental

health, all of which are priorities

of this government, led from the

very top by our Conservative woman

Prime Minister, who is focusing on

these issues that affect women's

lives.

What impact do you think

austerity has had, then, on poorer

parts of the communities across

England and Wales? There has been,

as you know, years of a squeeze,

rightly or wrongly, on health and

social security budget. Do you

accept that must have had an impact

on those communities where there are

more people on benefits than other

parts?

Actually, the health budget

in England have continued to rise,

continually, and more money is going

to those that need it. That is why

the government has focused on making

sure that people, especially on low

incomes, have got more money in

their pockets, with 3 million people

taken out of tax altogether, the

national minimum wage, 3 million

more jobs and as I said, 880,000

fewer families without work. That is

children better off because their

families are working.

I think the

difficulty is, you can reel off the

statistics but that is not what

people are feeling. People are

struggling, they are feeling worse

off, up and down the country. I

think the question about devolution

is interesting because the capacity

of our local government, our

community groups, to actually try to

solve some of these problems, I

think is massively constrained and

that is one of the areas where

actually, we can take action to give

them the power and resources to try

to act now. But the truth is, people

are struggling and they are not

feeling the benefits you are talking

about in the headline statistics.

That is not their expense.

What

would you do? Would increased wages

make a big difference?

Increased

wages is a big important part of

that but you have to think about how

we boost wages, in low-wage, low

skilled parts of the economy.

That's

about a proper, active industrial

strategy but also about the power

balance in the labour market, so

making sure workers have more power

so they can have more secure jobs

but they can actually argue that

more for the benefits of the work

that they do go to them in wages

rather than shareholders.

I'm sorry

we have to end it there. Thank you

for joining us.

To conserve

The Conservatives and Labour now

have clear differences

in their policies on how we should

trade after Brexit,

with Jeremy Corbyn saying we should

have a customs union with the EU,

compared to Theresa May

who says we shouldn't.

But what does all this

mean for consumers?

Emma Vardy's been looking

at how Brexit could affect

our shopping bills.

The way we change our relationship

with the EU in the future

could affect us all here on High

Street.

The Conservatives and Labour have

two distinct visions of the type

of Brexit they want.

And prices could go up and down

depending on the type

of Brexit that we get.

Both Conservatives and Labour

want to have free trade

with the EU after Brexit.

But Conservatives want

to leave the customs union

and the single market.

Think of the EU's single market

and customs union like a great big

high street where we can buy

and sell stuff from EU

countries at no extra cost.

At the moment, goods are traded

between EU countries free of charge.

Jeremy Corbyn says we should stay

in a customs union with the EU

with the aim of keeping prices

on our shopping

pretty much the same.

But at the moment, if we want goods

imported from outside the EU,

then they are charged and we have

to pay extra tariffs.

Theresa May says we're

going to leave the European single

market and customs union so that

we're less constrained

by EU trade rules.

And so that we'll be free

to strike our own trade deals

with other countries.

The economists who are enthusiastic

about Brexit think that we can make

big savings by cutting tariffs

on goods that currently we have high

tariff levels, like textiles

and clothing, for example.

Most economists point to the fact

that there aren't actually all that

many goods where there are high

tariffs on imports from the rest

of the world, and most economists

think that having a bit more

friction on half of our trade,

which comes from the EU,

is going to be much more costly

than the benefits that we get

from cutting tariffs

on the rest of the world.

There is no perfect way

of forecasting what will happen

in any Brexit scenario.

Take dairy, for example.

Around a quarter of all our dairy

products are imported from the EU.

If we leave the customs union,

the price could go up.

But imports from the rest

of the world, like butter from

New Zealand, could become cheaper.

Likewise, our meat from the EU

could become a bit more expensive.

But we could benefit from cheap

imports from the rest of the world.

But experts don't always agree

when it comes to how

much prices may change.

You may well hear some politicians

say completely the opposite from one

another when it comes to how us

consumers may be affected.

And that's because prices

could change by a greater or lesser

degree depending on how

the logistical challenges

of leaving the EU play out.

Some of the effects of leaving

the customs union are fairly easy

and direct to predict.

If we cut tariffs on textiles

and clothing, then we can work out

how much textiles and clothing

we buy from the rest of the world

what the price reduction will be.

On other aspects, it's

harder to make estimates.

We know that there will be increased

friction on trade with the EU

but it's harder to predict

a definite number on how big

these frictions will be.

With clothing, a lot

of it is imported from non-EU

countries where tariffs are high.

So it could become

cheaper after Brexit.

But contrast that with things

like cosmetics and soaps.

We buy a lot of this from the EU

and it's heavily regulated

so leaving the customs union

could mean cosmetics

get more expensive.

But don't forget, shopping

for goods is only one part

of what we spent our money on.

Leaving the customs union and single

market could also affect things

like package holidays,

airfares and services like banking.

But predicting that is much harder

until we know what sort

of Brexit we end up with.

Watching that is Warwick Lightfoot

from the Policy Exchange think tank,

who served as a special advisor

to a number of

Conservative Chancellors.

everyone is interested in the price

of things, and you could say that

since we had that referendum, before

we have even left the EU, things

have got more extensive.

Yes,

because the exchange rate went down.

What is interesting about that is of

course we have got a period where

international commodity prices have

been very weak, down a third

compared to five years ago, have not

gone up very much in 18 months,

because we have got much more

intense competition in the retail

sector, the pass-through from the

lower exchange rate into higher

prices has been weaker than one

might have expected. If you think

back to 2010, 11, when commodity

prices went up, the exchange rate

was down, there was quite a strong

pass-through into shopping baskets.

It has been more muted this time.

Can you understand why consumers

might be thinking, yikes, inflation

is going up, imports is more

expensive and so is my shopping?

Actually not. I am old enough to

seem inflation in the 1970s and 80s.

What I am impressed by the public

and the press and the clinical

community have two steady motivation

of 2%, and how sticky prices --

steady low inflation of 2%, and how

sticky prices have been. If you get

a world where you are confident

there is not kind to be a sharp

take-off with inflation, that is a

good thing. That has nothing to do

with the EU and the single market.

We have some very interesting things

to talk about about the customs

union, farm prices and Texas are two

separate.

Who is right in terms of

whether we should be a customs union

or not?

I don't know who is right,

but for me, you have got to go back

to why many people voted to leave

the European Union which was

essentially because they were

frustrated with the state of the

economy, fed up with their living

standards being squeezed. Things

like the housing crisis, worried

about the prospects for their

children. When you come to these

very complex issues, like the

customs union, your test has to be

will it make it easier or harder to

test these issues, create jobs and

deal with living standards? If it

doesn't, then why would you do it?

If you take something like the

customs union for me, the idea that

we should be part of a customs union

with our biggest trading block feels

like a no-brainer, if your test is,

jobs, living standards and making

life better for people.

Would it

bring food prices down, for example,

in the way that some conservatives

say, a ball of mozzarella could cost

£1 50 now and it could cost 91 p, is

it worth it for that?

I think there

was a lot of issues that people

voted on, through immigration to big

sovereignty issues like control. The

political class dressed up the

argument around a con version of

economics. Coming down to who -- a

cod version of economics. Coming

down to who would benefit, come with

me back to 1971 when Ted Heath took

us in. In his white paper he spelt

out the fact that food prices would

rise by 2.5% for five years. That is

one pledge she kept, and the reason

was that the EU had high tariffs on

food to protect the common

agricultural policy. This is the

tariff schedule of the EU lodged

with the World Trade Organisation.

Its 12,400 tariffs. Frozen orange

juice, 24.4%.

That is the tariff?

Yes. Prepared macro, 23.3%.

But how

much cheaper will it be if we were

out of the customs union?

Probably

if we were to go to world trade

prices, which is what we had in

1973, you could reduce food prices

by between six and 20%.

Would that

be worth it and would it be

guaranteed?

It's not guaranteed,

it's a bit of speculation and hope.

In the end it's about the trade off.

You might or you might not get

marginally lower food prices, but

you will still have a negative

knock-on effect on other parts of

the economy and if you go back to

the point, you made the point that

people voted for a range of reasons.

That's absolutely right but there

were a chunk of people who voted for

the reason that I talked about and

no one voted to be worse off.

Irrespective or what their

motivation was. When you look at the

trade-offs against things like the

impact on business and jobs, you

have to ask yourself whether it is

worth it.

On the trade-off, how

would you argue it the opposite way?

Are you actually saying that we

could be guaranteed lower food

prices, never prices on clothing,

and we can get things quite cheaply

at certain times at the moment, will

that be a big enough benefit to

leaving the customs union and

perhaps having to have trade more

expensive but the EU?

The future but

macro with the EU? The future

welfare of the UK economy will turn

on the policies we have. It will be

public stoning, taxation, monetary

policy and labour market modulation.

-- public spending. In terms of the

prices, if you reduce tariffs, you

can move to a one-off situation,

whatever the world pervading food

prices will be, you will have lower

prices. It's worth emphasising,

trade is about exposing your own

domestic competition to greater

competition and helping the

consumer. You hear from the lobbies,

you hear from the big businesses who

enjoy a protected food industry,

protected farming and you transfer

money into the hands of shareholders

and people who have got land worth

thousands and huge intelligence tax

on that. The shopper on the

supermarket on Saturday pays 20%

more for this stuff than they need

to. Textiles and cars, it goes all

the way through.

We have to leave it

there.

And for more reporting

and analysis of Brexit,

check out the BBC News website.

You can continue your conversation

and other time!

The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin

Salman is continuing his visit

to the UK and will have a private

dinner with Theresa May

at Chequers this evening.

The government has been keen

to stress it has made trade deals

potentially worth billions

of pounds, but the visit

is not without criticism.

Yesterday at PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn

attacked the government for aiding

the Saudis' military

intervention in Yemen.

Germany has suspended arms sales

to Saudi Arabia but British arms

sales have sharply increased

and British military advisers

are directing the war.

It cannot be right

that her government...

Mr Speaker, it cannot be right

that her government is colluding

in what the United Nations says

is evidence of war crimes.

Joining me from Derby is the Labour

MP Chris Williamson.

We were hoping to speak

to Charlotte Leslie,

Director of the Conservative Middle

East Council, but she has been

delayed in a meeting.

We hope to speak to her

on the programme again

in the near future.

Chris Williamson is here. How is it

fair for Jeremy Corbyn to say that

Britain or British military advisers

are actually directing war in Yemen?

We know that the military advisers

are operating in Saudi controlled

areas, that's has been widely

reported. I think it's therefore a

reasonable point to make that

clearly Britain is implicated in

this war in Yemen.

The government

says its....

They are up to their

elbows in Yemeni blood.

The

government says it is categorically

untrue. British military advisers

are not directing war in Yemen and

if that is the case, isn't it

responsible to say the opposite in

the House of Commons?

What are they

doing there? -- isn't it

irresponsible to say that? This

country is selling billions of

pounds of weapons to Saudi to do

this war in Yemen. There has been a

UN report which states that the

Saudi forces have been deliberately

targeting civilians populations

there. And causing a humanitarian

catastrophe. It seems to be that the

government is actually in breach of

the arms trade treaty it signed up

to 2014 with great fanfare about how

it was going to protect human rights

and create transparency in relation

to arms sales.

You are saying that

British military advisers are

conducting operations against Yemen

and they are involved in Saudi

decision-making in terms of the war

in Yemen?

It's been widely reported

that there are British monetary

advisers assisting the Saudi forces

in the war in Yemen. I think the BBC

has even reported upon that. One

wonders what they're doing, if

they're not doing that, what are

they there for?

It's important to...

You have evidence that they are

doing military decisions? What do

you think they're doing there?

I'm

not making the accusations, what is

the evidence of their making

military decisions? You must have it

because you have made the

allegations.

We know that there are

British military advisers operating

in Saudi controlled areas helping

them to identify targets. We know

from UN reports that many civilians

have been targeted by the missile

air strikes. And clearly, it seems

to be there is a correlation between

those two things. It's naive in the

extreme it seems to me to suggest

that the military advisers are not

engaged in assisting the Saudis in

these military operations. That's

what they're therefore, ridiculous

to suggest that they're not helping

to put this war.

I'm asking for the

evidence you have apart from reading

reports by the BBC and others. In

terms of the relationship that

Britain has with Saudi Arabia, do

you think that that religion ship

should be, should end, and stop?

Despite the fact the Prime Minister

said our security relationship is

important and has saved lives?

The involvement with the south-east

is subverting British democracy,

frankly.

We know British MPs have

received fairly large payments from

Saudi entities and we also know that

it is a forceful huge

destabilisation in the region and

the exportation of the extremist

ideology is putting British citizens

at risk, let alone the humanitarian

catastrophe in Yemen, let alone the

human rights abuses in Saudi itself,

where people are being executed

publicly. We seem to have lost the

signal.

No, I can still hear you

loud and clear and our viewers can

as well so keep going.

We seem to

have lost the signal.

I'm sorry, we

seem to have lost the Labour MP

Chris Williamson and we will have to

try to resume that on another day.

Chris Williamson talking about Saudi

Arabia and Britain's Croatian ship

with the country. -- and Britain's

relationship.

Should wolf whistling and catcalling

be classed as a hate crime?

Labour MP Melanie Onn used

a Westminster Hall debate to argue

sexist abuse would be taken more

seriously if it was.

We can speak to Melanie in a moment

but first take a look at an extract

from a film called 10

Hours Of Walking In New York City

As A Woman, which shows the unwanted

attention women can receive.

Melanie is with me now and I'm also

joined by the author

Dr Joanna Williams, who's

the education editor

at Spiked online.

Welcome to both of you. Joanna,

watching that video briefly there

and seeing what some women go

through every day, particularly the

more menacing moments as we saw just

at the end, is that misogynist

behaviour in your opinion?

No, I

think that video did the rounds on

YouTube and went viral on social

media last year but it has been very

thoroughly debunked by a number of

people who suggest that, well,

questioned the areas of New York,

why were those areas targeted? If

you walk around with a camera,

making eye contact with people,

looking for a particular response,

then you are likely to find it. I

think the problem is nowadays, we

throw around statistics like 85% of

women have experienced sexual

harassment, but when sexual

harassment is defined so broadly as

to include winking and whistling,

the real surprise is why so few

women have experienced sexual

harassment, if winking and whistling

our sexual harassment, my surprise

is that it's not 100% of women but I

don't think winking and whistling

our sexual harassment and I don't

think this is something that really

needs police time and attention

spent on it.

Melody, what do you say

first two Joanna articulating beside

it is too broad a spectrum to

include some of the things she has

said like winking.

Well, I tried to

not trivialise this as just being a

winking or wolf whistling issue and

actually, it is much broader and it

is about the continuous backdrop of

harassment that women experience

every single day and it is, you

know, going from very young girls,

in their school uniforms, right

through the spectrum to adult women

and receiving unwanted attention

that is intimidating, that is

off-putting, and that puts us

socially at a disadvantage. We are

targeted because of our sex. That is

when, and we have seen some success

around the country, Nottinghamshire

Police divine misogyny as a hate

crime and it has encourage more

women to come forward -- define

misogyny. It has led to convictions

of people who have been identified

through the process to have gone on

to commit more serious crimes

against women.

The thing is, isn't

this now in 2018 an opportunity to

set the reset button, to get the law

to keep up with what we now deem

acceptable standards of behaviour by

men towards women.

I think we are

pressing the reset button but to me,

we are pressing it in a way which is

entirely detrimental to women

because to me, this proposal is

incredibly insulting to women. It

suggests women are so fragile and

vulnerable that they can't cope with

walking down the street.

Why should

they have to put up with endless

wolf whistling and catcalling or

people shouting at you in the

street, men saying, "Hello,

darling".

A lot of this is about

human interaction and women can cope

with interactions are women, bizarre

though it may seem to people sitting

here, some women don't find it

wanted. Some women do actually

enjoyed engaging with people and

have no problem with it

have no problem with it whatsoever.

The danger is when we start talking

about people, children in school

uniform, girls in school uniform, we

reduce all adult women to that

status. I don't want the police

protecting me on the street from

wolf whistles and catcalls. I am

more than capable of being able to

protect myself. This is incredibly

illiberal.

In that sense, do we

really need legislation to deal with

this? There are laws already in

place, we have a hate crime laws and

laws against harassment. We are

talking about what one might

describe, and Joanna has said, as

the more trivial end of what is

harassment.

I completely understand

the side of the argument Joanna is

putting across, however, it is

something that happens on such a

ritualistic, regular basis and when

it comes to the other hate crimes

that we already have, very often,

these can be like sexual issues, so

people could be targeted because

they are a Muslim woman, or because

they are a black woman. To enforce

it and make sure it is properly

dealt with, the police have said

they don't object to it, it does not

take up any additional resources

from elsewhere, that they are very

happy to incorporate it into the

work they are already doing to

better protect women.

I think you

have had to have led a very

privileged life to think that is the

best use of police time. You've

clearly never been mugged or

burgled...

That's very... I'm not

assuming that. This is the problem,

I suppose, with the line of the

debate that has largely been taken

out of context. This is about

fostering a real change in our

culture and there's... The chair of

the sex determination review that I

undertook said that the laws set our

cultural norms and behaviours.

Isn't

that the point?

Exactly, that is the

point and it is an incredibly

illiberal change which is about

policing personal behaviour,

monitoring interactions between

people.

I really don't understand

why men think that is acceptable.

I

don't think it is just meant, I

think lots of women would object to

this law as well.

Would you object

to a law like this?

It is clearly

bad behaviour and I disagree in so

far as it is sexist and it should

not be tolerated. There is a

spectrum and I think you have to be

proportionate and you know, some of

the things

the things that we see, men taking

pictures of women up their skirts

and things absolutely should be

banned. Catcalling and wolf

whistling, I think we do need,

within the bounds of the existing

law, actually, to treat them firmly

and more strongly than we are at the

moment but I think there is a

cultural norm. If you say it is OK,

people continue doing it but if more

people say it is absolutely

disgraceful, it is unacceptable and

you can't behave in that way, that

in itself starts to shift the

cultural norm.

But what does it say,

as Joanna said earlier, that

actually you are going to in some

way change interaction between men

and women, that that is how

relationships, not with wolf

whistling and catcalling but if you

interfere at a sort of legal level

to that extent, it will make it

difficult for Newman who -- normal

human relations to continue?

It

really doesn't, though, does it come

to treat someone with dignity and

respect in a way, -- in the way a

man would treat another man, to be

that a woman, I don't think it

redefines the relationships at all.

The idea that men are completely

unable to cope with doing it at that

level is insulting to them.

The

problem is, everybody has a

different idea of what dignity and

respect means. I mean, I speak to

women who will say to me in private,

I wouldn't want this to be known

publicly but if somebody wolf

whistled at me, it puts a spring in

my step and a smile on my face.

But

should that be the reason and the

bases for not changing the law where

more women may feel intimidated by

it? Carriage Mackreth but how do we

know more women feel intimidated by

it? These are very subjective things

and why should we be so illiberal

that we are going to outlaw all

kinds of human fractions. I will

leave it there. Thank you for

joining us.

You'd think the former Ukip leader

Henry Bolton would want a bit

of a rest after being dropped

as party leader,

but not a bit of it.

He's just announced he's

set up a new political

party called One Nation.

Writing on the party's website,

Mr Bolton states that there

is an urgent need for a party

"dedicated to the full

independence of the UK

in all areas of law,

government and public

administration.

Ukip had been seen,

until the EU referendum,

been seen as just such a party" -

that repetition is the website's

mistake - but the former Ukip leader

says "it has lost much

of its influence and ability

to shape national events."

He goes on to claim One Nation

is "a party that considers the best

solution must be applied,

no matter whether that solution

might be traditionally

considered as a socialist,

liberal or conservative solution.

The best solution is

the best solution."

Henry Bolton joins us now.

What does that mean?

It means

whatever the problem is, you define

it well and you define or develop

the best solution.

Is that the best

you could come up with for your new

party?

But is there anyone out there

who would not like the best

solution? Do we apply political

doctrine or dogma to the problem? I

think times are moving on and the

old Victorian approach to the left,

right, centre of politics, based on

the class system is probably not

appropriate any longer.

Are you a

glutton for punishment?

Probably!

People would say you are mad, you've

just been ousted as the leader of

one party and here you are, trying

to start another.

I was trying to

professionalise Ukip and take it to

a position where it would be able to

move through Brexit and beyond and

shape the trajectory of the UK.

And

you failed.

I did, absolutely. I'd

take that on the chin, the party

didn't want to reform in that way

and they rejected the draft changes

to the Constitution. I think the

party is not in a very good place at

the moment.

But he wrote in your

statement that I just read out that

Ukip had once been seen as the party

that would give that change and a

proper Brexit, you are the leaders

and you are the one responsible for

it not happening.

I was trying to

reform it so it could be

constructive again. If we beat back

the referendum, the campaign was

highly effective and Ukip was

fundamental in that.

You were not

the leader then.

I wasn't but after

the referendum, I think the party

dropped the ball and allowed

factions to involve within the party

-- factions to evolve. Its finances

were undermined by what I would call

mismanagement or a lack of

management. They are in a bad place

now. Whether they can influence

national events now, I would

question that.

Although you were not

leader with these things happen so

surely you have something to blame?

Not when these things happen, the

party has been losing members for a

very long time before I became

leader and I was trying to reform

and change things.

How many members

have you got in the new party?

At

the moment, we're not taking

members, I was making a statement

the party was going to be formed

although it is not yet registered

with the Electoral Commission.

When

you going to do that?

It is

happening at the moment so it will

take another few weeks.

At the

moment, it's just you?

I have a team

to put in place infrastructure

beforehand, there's no point going

out there with a party that has no

structure or constitution.

How would

you define success?

First of all,

full independence from the European

Union, all areas of the law,

government.

For the party I meant.

No, that would be a success and

also, a change to British politics,

the way we do politics, to bring the

laws back to the people and connect

with government.

Thank you for

joining us.

Thanks to our guests.

Especially to you for being the

guest of the day.

And I'll be here at noon

tomorrow with all the big

political stories of the day.

Bye bye.